DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[Seizethecarp]

“The Punker’s image was the original high resolution copy that Orly's reduced image derived from, and you cannot see the misspelling on that.”

See this post by BP2 showing close-ups of the original Orly Lavender BC and the “Punked” BC in which Orly's is higher resolution.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?q=1&;page=7846

Here is a larger image from BP2 before Hoosiermama pointed out that the Orly image had “mai_en” not “maleen”:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?q=1&;page=7835

I read the Orly Lavender BC as “mai_en” and the “Punked” BC as maleen.

I do not see the paper folds and creases as identical as is discussed by BP2.

Textile weave proves nothing.

Neither the Orly BC nor the "punked" BC has been subjected to forensic examination, yet you claim to know which one is an original. I make no firm assertions of authenticity either way. I just call the specific features as I see them.

[BP2]

LOL! Come on ... admit it, Wiggy.
You're just JEALOUS your "proof"
of Obama's birth is less CREDIBLE than
the others out there on the Internet.

Speaking of which, we're still waiting on a response on your
screwed up logic on Obama's FactCheck COLB ...

Please rate the integrity & honesty surrounding
the Chain of Custody of Obama's "birth certificate."

Answer the following honestly ("1" is LOW, "10" is HIGH):

Rate the integrity & honesty of Barack Hussein Obama?

Rate the integrity & honesty of Obama's
2008 Chicago Campaign office?

Rate the non-partisanship of FactCheck.org
in "evaluating" Obama's COLB?

Rate the integrity & honesty of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC?

From to to by

[EnderWiggins]

"The only thing that's changed is the default data items. The other items that were dropped from the language weren't specifically restricted from release, especially when at least one item has already been publicly released at brith."

And yet you still chose to post an obsolete law rather than the actual current law in the effort to justify demanding more information than DOH has already released. Other than this being a tacit acknowledgment that they have already given you everything the law prescribes, it was bald attempt at deception.

"There is no information forbidden by release. Information is limited in some applications, but none is strictly forbidden, especially not in 338-18(d). The director has unlimited discretionary authority."

Nobody in the entire State Government (let alone the DOH) has "unlimited discretionary authority." They are in fact bound by statute to those limitations enacted by the legislature, and (as we have seen) these limitation are acknowledged in the UIPA regs as well.

"It contains information that might have relevance, but only if it can be supported as genuine.

There you go again... moving the goal posts. Well, I can move them back just as many times as you try to nudge them off the field.

A COLB is a self authenticating document. In the absence of contradictory evidence, it requires nothing else to support it as genuine. And we all know that you have exactly zero evidence to contradict it.

You've had almost two years to come up with some. Where is it?

[EnderWiggins]

"I read the Orly Lavender BC as “mai_en” and the “Punked” BC as maleen."

1) You are seeing only what you wish to see. The resolution of BP2's images do not allow that distinction to be made. In point of fact, the document says "maieen."

2) Think for just one moment as a non-Birther and ask yourself how much sense does it make that the single misspelling on the Punked document would happen to be exactly at the one point where there was piece of crap on the Orly version covering it up? The odds of that (stealing from the E-Trade Baby) are the same as being attacked by a polar bear and an ordinary bear on the same day.

3) Again... the Punked forger released the identical photograph as Orly's, but at a higher resolution. This proves that either he is the source, or at least closer to that source than Orly ever was.

"I do not see the paper folds and creases as identical as is discussed by BP2."

This is only because you are comparing two different photographs in two different lighting situations. The original shows the creases to be identical.

"Textile weave proves nothing."

You must know nothing then about textiles. Weave is absolutely diagnostic!!!

"Neither the Orly BC nor the "punked" BC has been subjected to forensic examination, yet you claim to know which one is an original. I make no firm assertions of authenticity either way. I just call the specific features as I see them."

And in so doing you demonstrate only one reason why Birther lies never die.

[Seizethecarp]

“Weave is absolutely diagnostic!!!”

Diagnostic only of a probability that the textiles in the two different images from Orly and the alleged punk came, perhaps, from the same production facility, but weave is no proof at all that two separate images are of the same exact textile item.

Two different specimens of textile produced on the same loom in the same production run would have the same weave as would all other specimens from the same run which could number in hundreds or even thousands.

The alleged punkster had plenty of time, after examining Orly's image, to look around for another piece of textile that matched from the same run or close enough to it to cast doubt on Orly's image.

I claim no certainty either way without forensic analysis of the originals. You persist in claiming to know to a certainty which is a fake without, apparently, being a photo or textile expert yourself and without any independent authentication of the photos and textiles in the photos.

[EnderWiggins]

"Diagnostic only of a probability that the textiles in the two different images from Orly and the alleged punk came, perhaps, from the same production facility, but weave is no proof at all that two separate images are of the same exact textile item."

Again... you are completely wrong and completely miss the point. I am not speaking of the general weave of a type of cloth. I am speaking of the specific and unique weave that makes each and every piece of cloth individually identifiable. The Punkster released THE SAME PHOTOGRAPH that Orly did, but at a higher resolution. It is not just a similar cloth from the same production facility... it is the identical piece of fabric in the identical photograph. The unique weave of that specific piece of cloth is only one of the many features that prove it.

[EnderWiggins]

"Please rate the integrity & honesty surrounding the Chain of Custody of Obama's "birth certificate."

Don't know, don't care.

The reason we certify documents is specifically so that chain of custody will be irrelevant. The COLB is certified.

It could have fallen from the sky, and it would still be proof of Obama's citizenship at birth.

[edge919]

And yet you still chose to post an obsolete law rather than the actual current law in the effort to justify demanding more information than DOH has already released. Other than this being a tacit acknowledgment that they have already given you everything the law prescribes, it was bald attempt at deception.

It's not obsolete. This shows there's no reason to protect the file number, among other things on the certificates. It also clearly states there are exceptions to 338-18(b). Sorry, but you're flatout wrong. They haven't given everything the law prescribes.

Nobody in the entire State Government (let alone the DOH) has "unlimited discretionary authority." They are in fact bound by statute to those limitations enacted by the legislature, and (as we have seen) these limitation are acknowledged in the UIPA regs as well.

No, the UIPA acknowledges not the limitation but the exception to limitations when outweighed by public interest. It's there in black and white and the example shown in the manual proves it.

A COLB is a self authenticating document.

... IN A COURT OF LAW. On a Web site operated by amateur, incompetent self-declared "fact checkers," not in the slightest. The thing that makes it self-authenticating is whether the court can tell if the seal and signature passes the smell test. Obama's COLB is just like the diapers Obama's mama's friend had to change. Maybe some baby wipes might be in order so you can see what's going on.

[EnderWiggins]

"It's not obsolete."

Yet another word for you look up.

"This shows there's no reason to protect the file number, among other things on the certificates."

Then why did they change the law to remove it? This stuff is not rocket science, edge. But you do have to honestly think about it.

"No, the UIPA acknowledges not the limitation but the exception to limitations when outweighed by public interest. It's there in black and white and the example shown in the manual proves it."

Listen to yourself. How can there be exceptions to limitations if there are no limitations?

I have no idea why you imagine the director of the Hawaii DOH has unlimited Cosmic Power, but they don't. They still have to follow the law.

And again, when you manage to show us how an infant's birth is comparable to the record of a senior official executing an important job, then I for one will stop laughing at your "example."

"IN A COURT OF LAW."

Exactly. Since you are not a court of law, you deserve even less.

[BP2]

Don’t know, don’t care.

It's obvious you "don't care", Wiggy. It’s also obvious you don’t take this seriously, reinforced by you closing your eyes and pretending Obama's FactCheck COLB REAL and factual.

Blind Faith is foolish on this one, Wiggy, especially when Obama and his cohorts have shown NOTHING but a history of LYING. Sounds like other punch-drinkers I've heard of ... the ones with Jim Jones down in Guyana. It didn't end well for them either.

It could have fallen from the sky, and it would still be proof of Obama’s citizenship at birth.

Hmmm ... “Obama’s citizenship”
vs “Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship”.

For someone who normally tries to be so precise, it’s striking how you keep making these unintentional Freudian slips.

[EnderWiggins]

"Wiggy. It’s also obvious you don’t take this seriously

Again, you continue to get soooooooo close without actually getting it. I do take this seriously, BP... I took an oath to defend the Constitution and have never forgotten that oath for a second.

But you? No, you I don't take very seriously.

"For someone who normally tries to be so precise, it’s striking how you keep making these unintentional Freudian slips."

Redundant much? What's an "intentional Freudian slip" sound like?



So, these two Freudians are having a drink, and one asks the other, "How were your holidays?"

The second says, "Oh pretty good, up until I made a Freudian slip."

"Oh? What happened?"

"Well, I meant to say, 'Please pass the potatoes.'"

"What did you say?"

"I said, 'You ruined my life you bitch!'"

[STARWISE]

That's because the n00bie's a knowing and purposeful
DEFENDER OF DARKNESS.

That there are no expressions of concern or interest in
questioning the obfuscations, fabrications, lies, smoke
and mirrors, and all that's been craftily and purposefully
concealed, planted, obscured and hidden in the Ghostly
One's purported created life and past shows that amply.

The complete lack of ANY expressions of ANY doubt belies
what those who have been researching this for nearly 2 years
intuitively and factually know about the web of shadows and
puzzles in this maze of a life.

The arrogant n00bie is some sort of operative on a mission,
who adds nothing positive to this site, and has proven, in
fact, to be a menace here.

The n00bie could also be tag teaming with other n00bies and
long-time sleeper FReepers suddenly engaged in this issue,
playing the good cop/bad cop routine for oppo research and info.

[edge919]

Yet another word for you look up.

... says Mr. "Prurient" ... LOL

Then why did they change the law to remove it?

Doesn't really matter since they didn't specifically prohibit the release of this information in the amendment. Public interest and the opinion letter provide legal permission to release it.

Listen to yourself. How can there be exceptions to limitations if there are no limitations?

I didn't say there are no limitations, although Part D of HRS 338-18 expresses none. The purpose of the UIPA is to provide guidance on how to make information public, not to hide it.

I have no idea why you imagine the director of the Hawaii DOH has unlimited Cosmic Power, but they don't. They still have to follow the law.

Please ... enough strawmen mischaracterizations. Part D says "as the director may authorize." How is that limited?? How is it not a matter of following the law to authorize the release of information to meet the public interest??

And again, when you manage to show us how an infant's birth is comparable to the record of a senior official executing an important job, then I for one will stop laughing at your "example."

So it's your learned opinion that job performance evaluations are regularly published in the newspaper like births?? The public interest in both documents is related to the jobs of both persons. Getting hysterical prevented you from seeing the obvious.

Since you are not a court of law, you deserve even less.

Right. We do have less. Obama and the proof of his birth is a big Zero. Glad you admit it.

[little jeremiah]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2464069/posts?page=141

THE NEXT BIG THING (liberal Media Matters hiring intern trolls)
bigjournalism.com ^ | Mar 4 2010 | Andrew Breitbart

Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:27:19 AM by Mamzelle

Please read about Breitbart’s opening salvo against John Podesta and Media Matters.

This is not paranoia. Media Matters, a Soros outfit, is hiring “interns” to come on conservative forums and try to sow division, slow down momentum, forment confusion. And they are better at it than they used to be. They don’t curse and swear like liberals on their own forums do.

---

Wiggy.

[little jeremiah]

Check out the link.

[little jeremiah]

Meant to ping you to the linked thread.

[EnderWiggins]

"I didn't say there are no limitations, although Part D of HRS 338-18 expresses none. The purpose of the UIPA is to provide guidance on how to make information public, not to hide it."

Oh? You didn't?

Actually, yes you did. And here were your exact words:

"There's virtually ZERO limitations (pun intended)." (post 2,372)

"Part D says "as the director may authorize." How is that limited?? How is it not a matter of following the law to authorize the release of information to meet the public interest??"

Again... it's not "Part D." It's "Paragraph D." The limitations for all of Part 18 can be found in Paragraphs A & B.

It is a direct violation of this law (and those limitations) for the director to authorize the release of any further information to you and butterdezillion, since your personal prurient interest (see, great word and I'm still using it perfectly) does not equate to "public interest."

Again... you really have to come down off your high horse and realize that you represent nobody but yourself.

"So it's your learned opinion that job performance evaluations are regularly published in the newspaper like births??"

No. It is my learned opinion that you still are completely clueless as to what constitutes "public interest." The public actually has an interest (and not a prurient one) concerning the job performance of a senior official. They have no equivalent public interest in the name of the hospital where that public official was born or the name of his attending physician.

"The public interest in both documents is related to the jobs of both persons."

Only to somebody who does not understand what "public interest" means.

"Right. We do have less. "

But you have so much more than you deserve.

[edge919]

Oh? You didn't? Actually, yes you did. And here were your exact words: "There's virtually ZERO limitations (pun intended)."

Is this your first day reading?? What you quoted was in reference to part D of HRS 338-18. There are no limitations expressed in the specific part of the statute. Later we were discussing the Uniform Information Practices Act (a different law), which grants exceptions to any laws that have limitations (the UIPA covers MORE than HRS 388-18). I understand you're either confused or you're trying to blur my comments. I'll take all the time you need to understand.

Again... it's not "Part D." It's "Paragraph D." The limitations for all of Part 18 can be found in Paragraphs A & B.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. I cited the opinion letter that shows where Part D is not covered by anything in Part B. It was very explicit.

No. It is my learned opinion that you still are completely clueless as to what constitutes "public interest." The public actually has an interest (and not a prurient one) concerning the job performance of a senior official. They have no equivalent public interest in the name of the hospital where that public official was born or the name of his attending physician.

Absolutely wrong again. HRS 338-18 very clearly acknowledges that birth records ARE of public interest by allowing information to be made available to the public in Part D and in other parts of the statute. See Part G section 3: "A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;" ... notice how a vital event can have direct bearing on an employment situation ... exactly the reason such records are sought from Barry Soetoro.

Only to somebody who does not understand what "public interest" means.

You have an errant "not" in your sentence. Evidently words aren NOT your strong suit.

But you have so much more than you deserve.

Zero does not = "much more"

[EnderWiggins]

Look... we're not going to get anywhere here. You are convinced that the Director of the Hawaii DOH is some sort of transcendent über-Authority with vast Cosmic powers capable of ignoring any and all privacy laws at her whim and caprice.

I am equally certain that they actually have to obey the law.

So, our going back and forth on this yet again helps no-one. All I can add is that the Directer herself appears to agree with me, and the OIC has explicitly told butterdezillion that the DOH is right.

[Seizethecarp]

“The Punkster released THE SAME PHOTOGRAPH that Orly did, but at a higher resolution. It is not just a similar cloth from the same production facility... it is the identical piece of fabric in the identical photograph.”

I do not recall seeing a photograph from the punkster that was the “same” as Orly's image. I posted BP2’s comparison of two similar images, which are the only ones I am aware of.

The punkster could easily have staged his/her photo to look as close as possible to Orly's image after reproducing Orly's image as closely as possible to create a hoax punk.

If you post a link to a punkster image that is in fact literally the same as Orly's (without the schmutz as you claim), I would be very interested and it could well shift the relative probabilities that I currently assign to the two images.